About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30
accident. had nothing to do with the obama administration's treatment of israel. >> everyone in america who took that division. >> she said it had everything to do with the increasingly conservative nature spent she's in that job because she will say things like that. >> she was saying the jews that vote in your district are just naturally more religious and more conservative, and they are republican. >> but in prior elections always voted democratic. >> but if there is a common, right, that this is the most informed part of the american electorate. >> your district? >> no, the jewish community. whether they're in florida or virginia or wherever. and that isn't going to go away. and i think as the election becomes more focused and the issues become clear, the divide will be more pronounced. >> mr. mayor, it is a little confusing when you think about the 2012 race, especially if israel is in your sidelines making decisions, confusing. on the one hand, you have what is clearly an icy relationship between the prime minister of israel and the president of the united states. it doesn't feel warm
enforcement one of the reasons why the obama administration embraced it, but it's all about how these things are represented and what they're obligated to say when your pants down. do you believe in enforcing these laws been problematic are not? and when you say -- the whole idea of the. >> translator: is that these aren't the good kids. many -- i think they're right. it doesn't mean that they're a bad kid. community college or maybe you have got in trouble when you're a teenager. i think there is something very disingenuous about the debate we have around us, but of course that is because advocates of destruction debate in the certain white. this is rooted in any kind of believes that our prior to the way that we actually structure the conversation. i think that advocates have structured the conversation very advantageous sleep. >> a couple more questions in the month to cut off. i was wondering if you could and testimonials in terms of looking forward toward the democratic party strength. >> and also the gentleman over there. >> thank you. thanks to the forum today. the panelists. i can gi
.gov/bookfest. jeffrey to the reports on the relationship which in the obama administration and the u.s. supreme court. the author exam of the recent addition of the four justices in the past five years and how it has affected the court's decisions on the numerous cases including its recent ruling on health care. it's about an hour. [applause] thank you. hello, everybody. so excited to be here in philadelphia. i know that is the usual pandering that goes on by the speakers but in my case it happens to be true. i am not myself from philadelphia, but my dad was at the high school. [applause] depending has just begun. curtis institute. i don't know if we have any more here and he went to temple as well and he taught me that the streets were paved and i have enjoyed my visit ever since. i'm really happy to be talking about the oath. italy cannot today's ago. so far, so good. it's exciting. you work on these books and people like to lead them. it's exciting to the answer, but the start by asking the first question that i know is on your mind, which is who is your favorite justice? [laughter] it's not elena
's very easy to say here the obama administration and our government is not doing their job. i'm asking the american citizens at the end of the day, what are you doing to help the deconstruction of the complex issue to support democratic everywhere? if you're serious about democracy here, you have to be serious about democracy, and democracy's about explaning and complexity about tensions about understanding from behind the scene what is happening so this is one answer to the question. .. then begin the populist and religious, and the canadian populace to neocon we have to be equipped. when newton and intellectuals humbling. i mean it. i mean it. an intellectual geoid is really a freer serious about democracy , really have to understand that we have to discipline our minds exist -- resisting emotional politics. if we don't get it so quickly and motions are misleading. in the arab world when it comes to women, if you're good in the speak about women's rights. of sorry. announcing the spectrum coming from the west. i'm saying this in the name of islam because you're not respecting the mus
of the administration usually reflects the guy at the top. so you have obama as someone who comes across on the people who know him as sort of moody, indecisive, sent this come as someone who has been jokes in his presence when he's not the one telling them, someone who is not a constant predictable northstar. and that comes through in the culture of the administration. a lot of the people are willing to talk because at some point it will spend weeks or months working on a decision, a policy just to topple at the last minute. one of the close collection's advisers very little reefing her back out of the issue. we just sort of sweep and ended in a careful where a negotiation and planning. so it wasn't an ideological motivation. it was a personal motivation, professional motivation. >> that is certainly true. let's go through some of the case studies you talk about your icons confess i found the discussion about going after osama bin laden riveting. this was described over and over again as the democratic national convention is a bold and decisive move by this president, but she had to describe it or it
the obama administration is doing right now it's not that many believe could different than what the bush administration did in the two terms especially at the end and given that there is that consensus that's one of the reasons they are not issued in the political campaign but i think it's also one of the reasons why things are in the national security area. >> this will be the last security to that question. >> i think a lot will depend on who the next president is, because i think that there will be several justices who are getting older but i think most of them would feel if they are voluntarily retiring and not forced to do so by health concerns or some other extenuating circumstances the honorable thing to do would be retiring during the term of the party that appointed you in the first place so you could see justice ginsburg now that she's accomplished. i think she's trying to make a record for how long she's on the court and she will accomplish that in 2014. you may see scalia or kennedy retire if they get president romney. it makes a huge potential shift in the court based on the
this country, religious up and down this country who believe that the obama administration rightly has leveled a direct attack on their ability to be catholic. that is not going to pass unnoticed in states like ohio, michigan, pennsylvania where the catholic vote is huge and motivated and not happy with president obama. secondly, that chick-fil-a story , this has just begun to roll out, but everyone already knows about it. .. >> the third story i asked about was the 1.5% gdp growth, the horrible growth number, and, again, less than half a percent. the chick-fil-a story was just a day ole. everybody heard about chick-fil-a. it was one of those stories that moves by social media, by e-mail, by tfn, and conversation about the church peat owe, in a group like this, or your friends, and it outrages people. it outrages even supporters of same-sex marriage. it outrages, as i had on the radio show today, gay people. they don't want people bullied over their religious faith, and when rahm tries to beat up the keys of chick-fil-a or the mayor of boston or san fransisco, those are democrat friends of the
in the light of the reaction of the u.s. catholic of bishops to the obama administration rules and the affordable health care act for contraceptive coverage in such cases. parenthetically this is the elephant in the room catholics disagree with teaching and contraception. >> i'm one of those catholics. [laughter] >> in this case the institution i believe still has religious freedom, but other parties are involved, and they have their freedom, too. their religious freedom and peace catholic institutions receive government funding for their operations. so, you have here the attention of the two different conflicting rights going on here. the rules proposed by the obama administration first said that peace church institutions had to provide contraceptive health care insurance for their employees. not only the u.s. catholic bishops but many other catholics and many other proponents of the religious liberty oppose the obama administration regulations but to its great credit the obama administration then proposed a compromise that such employees would be covered for contraception but
be uncomfortable. in reality, the obama administration has said it will consider proposals from states that are aimed at finding better ways of getting welfare recent beans into jobs. factcheck.org and the "washington post" fact checker have said the same, that the claim is false. [cheers and applause] >> what do you say? >> ladies and gentlemen, -- >> allow me to respond. >> the truth tour begins tonight. >> i should've set that up at the beginning of that was herman cain maintaining the same point that romney campaign has, that the obama administration is getting rid of the work requirement. and what i thought that showed was the importance of fact checkers in this campaign. and i really think, and brendan and glenn and i were just talking about how things are different this time compared to 2008. there's more fact checking than ever, and the fact-checking hasn't taken much greater prominence this time. the candidates are being asked about it. i got a call from cnn last night that they had asked mitt romney in an interview about how the fact checkers have debunked that ad. and about
-span.org. >> next, three former obama administration pentagon officials defend the president's foreign policy and national security record while criticizing mitt romney. moderated by former cnn, cnn contributor bill schneider, the discussion focuses largely on iran's nuclear program and america's presence in afghanistan. this event, which took place yesterday, runs about an hour, and we'll show you as of this as we can until the pentagon briefing scheduled at 2 p.m. eastern. >> struggling in, and you're encouraged to help yourself to coffee, food, whatever you need. my name's mike bennett, on behalf of my colleagues, jim kessler -- who's here somewhere -- sean gibbons and mika, welcome to another anti-politics press breakfast. before i hand it over to bill, i just had a couple of things we wanted to talk about relating to our work on national security. as mitt romney discovered on september 11th of this year, nothing has the power to shake up a presidential race like a change in national security. and that can be either an external event as we had in libya and egypt, or it can be a political
is spending all of its time besides voting to repeal obamacare, trying to investigate the obama administration, and this is exactly what would be predicted. so what we have been is separation of party some, not really separation of powers. we have unified government. we don't have oversight. and what we need to address is how we get the benefit of oversight that we do get when we have divided government without paying the immense cost which is the near impossibility that we in our time now pass responsible legislation. >> i just have a question. the amendment process. our constitution, some of the mark and a big like the fact that i can vote. and that i dislike the fact that i can vote, the fact that black people and no wonder considered property. i don't know if they actually even succeed to see how it's even -- it didn't really change. and the constitution, and amendment process, even a good thing we always have to look over the whole document to see how changes to be made. >> the united states constitution is the most in the known world. all of the state constitutions are easier to amend th
against the obama administration on the key argument in the case, which was uzbek commerce clause of article one of congress to pass the individual mandate. which says individuals have to get health insurance. and as i sat in court on june 28 and heard chief justice roberts announce his decision in the case, i learned the edge to the question, which was no, it doesn't. the commerce clause does not allow the court, the congress to invoke an individual mandate. but then any decision that stunned many people, but no one more than me, john roberts reached for a subsidiary argument that had only been upended, had only been mentioned in passing in both the supreme court and even the lower courts and he said the individual mandate was a permissible use of taxing power of congress and not the commerce clause, and thus the law would be upheld. subquestion finally anticipate why, why did roberts do that? and i think there were three main reasons. one is, i think you have to take his opinion at face value. eastham thought it was a legitimate use of the taxing power. i think the second and th
government grew during the bush and administration and during the obama administration 1.7%. i agree it is too big bet you put it in the wrong era. we both know of entrepreneurs who have been very successful but but who built the road who built the highways and it is basic six common-sense people understand people come into the state with no government at all. then don't drive on the highway. businesses need the educated work force granted, it is public-private partnership
it advancing under continued obama administration? and what is the government supposed to do, what might happen if they can't get legislation passed? >> i wouldn't put it in a box under each administration. this is an issue that is a significant threat to our nation. is a threat to our financial security. it's a threat to our national security. it's got to be taken seriously regardless of who is in office. ideally what i would like to see is somebody in the white house, in office perhaps, that is responsible for coordinating this across the entire government. as a direct report to the president of the trade. somebody who's got the authority of the president of the united states to make decisions, and to coordinate this across the sectors. there's no single government agency that has the ability, the capacity to respond to this or to work this. people talk about nsa all the time, and general alexander i think is a real patriot is someone who cares about this country and he's got great capability, but that is one piece of the solution. somebody needs to coordinate that across the entire, the whol
the obama administration slowed the growth of medicare spending by $700 billion the big attack of republicans for having done not. in the environment where you can't talk about medicare, where no one would talk about -- everyone is just talking about loophole closes, how do you get from here to there? let me ask doug first. you save the environment would be different in 2013. other than this pressure you talk about for the rating agencies, what is going to get these guys singing to my all? >> they are not going to think oh my god. this environment is the worst, but this'll be the right time to fix it. you don't have to worry about economics not happening. it can be the second word and it's very unlikely that she can't avoid getting it to next year, where i think they're going to be outside pressures. capital market, cutting rating agencies and great leadership out of the white house to get this done. and it's going to be difficult underscored to be lots of days where it's going to look like were going to make it and there's no question about that. we are never very pretty when
of achievement on the obama administration and ends up accepting argument at time it was red called. the theory that the penalty people pay if they choose not to follow the mandate is a tax, and falls in the government's taxes power. this argument, of course, was in great -- with the fact that obama administration and congress had disclaimed there was anything about the law that was a tax. >> when you went in to the argument, and thought about the case, you mentioned you were conscious about where you thought your stronger and weaker points were. how vulnerability did you think you were on that. >> can imagine almost anything. but that was not something that was keeping me up at night. and you just, you know, as a lawyer you got to be practical about this. and, you know, you look at, by the way, by the time we got to the supreme court we had a lot of models for opinions that, you know, upheld the law and a lot of models for opinions that struck the law down. and the overwheeling them was, you know, even the judges that july held the law didn't think much of the taxes argument, anne, you know, h
years of the obama administration from only 1.5%. i agree that the federal government is too vague, big, but i think you are laying that in the wrong era. what i believe is that small businesses do go from entrepreneurial spirit. there is no question. we have been very successful. but even as we started telling that story, who built the roads and bridges and highways. practical people, commonsense new common sense new hampshire voters understand that we have had these states come in and they don't want any government at all. don't drive on the highways. it is the reality -- the reality is an educated workforce that is primarily from the public schools, the public university, from the technical colleges, public and private partnership. that is what i spent my career doing. bringing people together. the nonprofit communities and to give sense that it's necessary to have legislation, often it is not. the two projects that i like to work on are the medication bridge program in the college savings program. neither of those required any government expenditures. not a single tax dollar. and it
billion dollars in civilian aid of the five years at the beginning of the obama administration. if i understand correctly touch and projectiles at the time the amount but if i understand this correctly this was a deeply idealistic effort to try to say we are not only going to give money, were not only going to have an impact with a fairly large civilian assistance program to balance, if you will, are ongoing military commitment to pakistan, but we're also going to set up a structure or relationship through what was generally called a strategic partnerships to try to make -- to break out of that pattern. after 2008-9, those of you who knew richard holbrooke knew that the hurricane hit pakistan and there was a set of very ambitious kamal of government if you will pools and structures that were put in to try to build a long-term commitment to pakistan. i use long term advisedly. the counter-terrorism effort, post september 11th. by its very nature, by almost the element of the way people understand was by its nature short-term. good to kill bad guys. this was to balance that short-term
foundation forum, the u.s. house has done better than the senate for the obama administration. the group also discuss they don't always read the legislation in full before voting for. this is 90 minutes. >> good afternoon. welcome. minus daniel schuman and i'm the director of the advisory committee on transparency which is hosting today's events. today's discussion is going to focus on whether congress is serious about transparency. we're going to explore the progress that is made up to 100 of congress and identify some of the deficits. we're going to do my portion very quickly because what's really interesting of course is what our general palace have to say. let me start by introducing a. on my right is hugh halpern, staff director for the u.s. house of representatives committee on rules. on the committee serves as chairman david tries chief adviser on committee and leadership that is the to my leftist jim harper, director of information policy studies at the cato institute and is also the founder of washington watchdog, which keeps a very close eye on legislation and federal spending. chim
of business and both were at the council of economic advisers during the obama administration. >> thank you very much michael and to the hamilton project for helping coauthor ronnie and i to further develop this idea into a full-fledged proposal. thanks to you all for joining us this morning. so, i will continue without slides for the moment. what's the idea? economists know that education is really a foundation, not only for individual opportunity, but also for our collective success as an economy. if our towns and cities and regions can't produce an educated work force, we are less likely to succeed and in this increasingly ever competitive economy. we've heard about challenges this morning in the education system. economists note that looking back over history, our capacity to educate, to innovate and to build is how we have developed a level of economic prosperity in the world levels of prosperity and americans have come to enjoy on average the improvements in health and all the things that come with it. we also know that in this -- and these ingredients of education and building that e
and dividend rates together, creating party between gross stocks and dividend, stocks the obama administration latest budget calls for untimely rates and allowing the rate on dividends arise to 43.4% while the top rate on capital gains would be 23.8. i'd like to get each of your thoughts on this proposal. how would a nearly 20 percentage point disparity between the capital gains and dividend affect investment decisions. mr. broadway? >> well, i guess i tend to be a skeptic on all of this the country has had vastly differentiates for capital gains in ordinary income that had rates where they -- had times where the rates were similar. i don't know that the -- i'm reluck assistant to say that whether you had a differential or had the same rate that would have a significant impact on the overall performance of the economy. i think the overall performance of the economy is far too complex to describe the substantial difference based on the taxation of capital gains versus other income. >> just to show you how would i am, to the calculation i think it's twenty five years ago, i wrote a paper with a
there are a lot of folks that believe gosh, we need more rigorous immigration enforcement. that's why the obama administration embraced the. it's about how all these things represent and what are you obligate to say when you're pinned down. do you believe in enforcing these laws, or not? the thing is when you say, the whole idea of the dream act is that well, these are the good kids. let's attack the interest of the good kids. advocates will say, i think there are, it doesn't mean you're a bad kid if you're in community college or it may be got in trouble if you're a teenager and your criminal record, it doesn't make you a bad person and i think there's something very disingenuous about the debate. that's of course advocates want to structure the debate in a certain way. i don't know how much of this is rooted in any kind of beliefs prior to the way that we actually structure the conversation. i do think that advocates have structured the conversation very advantageously which is their job. >> thank you. >> just a couple more questions and then we'll have to cut it off. so maybe back there. and
than the senate or the obama administration making its proceedings more transparent to the public online. that is according to participants of a semi-foundation for an in washington d.c. the group also discussed the fact that lawmakers not only read the legislation of full before voting on it. this is 90 minutes. >> welcome. my name is daniel schuman, director of the advising committee and transparency. today's discussion is going to focus on whether congress is serious about transparency. we are going to beat the one 112 congress and also identify some of the deficits. we are going to do my speaking portion very quickly because it's really interesting is of course a panelist on to say. to mr. for introducing them. on my right is hugh halpern, staff director for the u.s. house of representatives committee and rules. on the committee is served us chief advisor. immediately to my left is jim harper, director of policy studies at the cato institute and also the founder of washington watch.com, which keeps a close eye on legislation and federal funding. jenna sasser to mention washing
obama recently declined to defend and the administration is enforcing it. the house has created the bipartisan legal advisory group. and the fans these laws since the administration abdicated its role in defending them and paul clement in that task. there are several cases all of which have petitions to decide. the first one and probably the front runner is a combination case, personnel management and the department of health and human services. it came out of massachusetts. two cases have been combined and they argue the equal protection clause violates section 3 of the defense of marriage act because the defense of marriage act violates the equal protection clause because there is no rational basis for this or it doesn't pass strict scrutiny. the idea of which level of scrutiny must pass has been questioned so we're happy to argue both. elena kagan was involved at the district court level during confirmation hearings that came out and questions her office had been involved in doing internal discussions of strategies in the case so she would be recused from that case and that p
about the specifics. you even have a case where the congress and the obama administration slowed the growth of medicare spending by $700 billion, and they're being attacked by republicans for having done that. so, in an environment where you can't talk about medicare, in an environment where no one will talk about base broadeners, everyone talks about loophole closers, how do you, how do you get from here to there? and let me ask doug, first, you said that the environment will be different in 2013. other than this pressure you talked about pro the rating agencies what will get these guys singing kumbayah with each other? >> they're not going to sing kumbayah. i don't want to pretend that they will. this environment is the worst but this would be the right time to fix the fiscal cliff so we don't have to worry about the economics. not happening. lame duck would be the second worst. and for all the reasons i outlined i think it is very unlikely we'll do anything real significant. do the little bit you can to avoid damage and get to next year where, i think they're going to be outsi
obama has accused china of exports. as the administration done enough to protect business against unfair trade practices from china? >> they can do more. i am glad they jumped in on the issue about the tires and the issue about the cards. i am concerned about new hampshire losing 16,000 jobs and i think congressman bass is on record with the special trade status for china that is very threatening. dirksen senate office build >> the trade vote is one that is over a decade ago and it is important because it assures the great success china plays by our rules and not the other way around but i do agree such issues as currency debate ought to be resolved and i condemn this administration of doing virtually nothing proactive to deal with the issue of china competition. >> the postal service is losing $50 million a day and proposed cutting saturday service. bass: i break with my republican colleagues. a miscalculation by the office of personnel management on their retirement contribution but once you take that issue and put it aside which they should do we still have a postal service running at
of criticism regarding the current administration, but there are some good decisions. and the decision to eliminate osama bin laden, i think it was leadership in action when president obama decided to kill osama bin laden. and he did the right thing ordering the troops to do it. but 24 hours later there was one leader that condemned the u.s. for killing one of the greatest leader. do you know who was that leader which condemned the americans? it was the leader of the hamas organization in gaza. he was the only one who say i'm condemning the u.s. for killing a great hero of the arab nation. and on the other end, while sending the troops to kill osama bin laden, the american administration is pressuring israel to sit down and negotiate. but with whom? with the same people who praised osama bin laden? with the same people who teach and incite against jews every day? that is why i think that if we need to get to a point after which we have a decision, we cannot allow the palestinian state. also i don't know how many of you have been to israel, but to get from my hotel to here is almost cro
and democratic administrations. i think it's unfair to level such a criticism in president obama. he has been a very strong leader on protecting this country as president bush was. and i think both presidents, since 9/11, have put security of the american people, our homeland security as job number one as they should. and they have both been strong in the area. it's unfair to assert that president obama has let down the guard. libya was a triple tragic event. he died two weeks ago today along with the three of the colleagues. the responsibility for guarding our embassy overseas is not the -- we don't have american military protecting our embassy. it's the host country that provides the perimeter security around the diplomatic security. we provide the security for the foreign embassies in new york city. who let us down in cairo? it was the egyptian government. that's why the crowd went over the wall and put down the american flag and putted it up. it was the libyan security forces who let us down in benghazi when ambassador stevens was killed. i don't think it's appropriate to somehow blame th
than the previous administration did. and we've been winning the cases. >> wednesday president obama and mitt romney meet in the first presidential debate. news hour jim moderates from the university of denver. watch and debate with c-span followed by two ways to watch the debate at nine. on c-span both candidates on screen the entire debate. and on c-span2, the multicamera version of the debate. and following, your reactions, calls, e mailings and and tweets. follow the live coverage on c-span, c-span radio and online at c-span.org. see the first presidential debate love on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. watch and engage. coming up tonight, the carnegie endowment for international peace hosts a decision discussion on the role of the u.s. president in the world and declining. eric can ton faces his economic challenger in a seventh district debate. that's followed by libertarian presidential candidate gary johnson on the obstacle of faces a third party candidate. >>> on washington journal tomorrow morning, we'll exam the health care law that presidential candidates mitt romney s
brought more trade cases against china in one term than the previous administration did in two, and, by the way, we have been winning the cases. >> wednesday, president obama and mitt myth meet in the first presidential debate. the newshour jim leher moderates. live with our live preview at 7 p.m. eastern. on c-span, both candidates on screen, the entire debate. on c-span2, the multicamera version of the debate and dpolling, your reactions, calls, e-mailing and tweets. follow our coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c-span doirgs. >> i have all the channels, house, senate, plus author, book review, speeches, those kinds of things. if i know a bill's coming up on the floor in the house, i watch, you know, which channel i want to see because i have them all. if there's either a speech i know that you've covered or a book review or so on, i'm going to watch that. when i want to find out something that has some value
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30